the crossvergence perspective: reflections and projections · the crossvergence perspective 2 the...

The Crossvergence Perspective:

Reflections and Projections

David A. Ralston

University of Oklahoma

Acknowledgement: I would like to note that a multitude of colleagues have been an

inspiration over the years in my development of the crossvergence perspective. In particular,

however, I specifically would like to acknowledge my co-authors who participated in the six

studies that I include in this discussion of the evolution of my thinking regarding

crossvergence theory. In alphabetical order, they are: Fanny Cheung, Carolyn P. Egri, David

J. Gustafson, Wei He, David H. Holt, Carlos W.H. Lo, Nancy K. Napier, Van Thang

Nguyen, James Pounder, Joseph Stauffer, Robert H. Terpstra, Kai-cheng Yu, Xun Wang, and

Yim-Yu Wong.

The Crossvergence Perspective 1

The Crossvergence Perspective:

Reflections and Projections

Abstract

In this retrospective, I chronicle the development of the crossvergence theory of values

evolution, which states: it is the dynamic interaction of the socio-cultural influences with the

business ideology influences that provides the driving force to precipitate the development of

new and unique values systems in societies. Crossvergence theory was introduced in our 1993

JIBS paper and was the focus of our 1997 Decade Award paper, as well as a series of subsequent

papers. Thus, I discuss the purpose and findings for six papers that have contributed to our

present level of knowledge concerning crossvergence theory. I conclude my comments with a

discussion of the relevance of longitudinal and multi-level research, measures found to be useful,

and methodologies to consider, as well as identifying research topics in need of exploration.


The term “crossvergence” was coined by Ralston and colleagues in our 1993 JIBS article,

“Differences in Managerial values: A study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC managers” (Ralston,

Gustafson, Terpstra & Cheung, 1993). In this article, we presented crossvergence as a synergistic

perspective of values formation and evolution that addressed the seemingly incomplete

explanations of the previously proposed convergence and divergence perspectives (Andrews &

Chompusri, 2005; Kelley, MacNab & Worthley, 2006; Ralston, Pounder, Lo Wong, Egri &

Stauffer, 2006). Crossvergence theory contributes to our understanding of values change and

evolution by illuminating the important ways in which socio-cultural and business ideology

influences precipitate the nature and degree of values evolution. To develop these points, the

remainder of this discussion is comprised of three sections. First, I will define key terms. Next, I

will trace the development of the crossvergence concept by drawing from the findings of six

empirical studies of which I was an author, starting with our 1993 JIBS paper, and of course

including our 1997 JIBS article that was selected as the 2007 AIB Decade Award winner. I will

conclude with some ideas of where I think we might want to head in the cross-cultural values

and behavior research area.

DEFINITIONS

To understand values evolution from a cross-cultural context, I believe that we need to

consider both the influences (i.e., predictor variables) on individual-level values and the

theoretical frameworks that describe the process of values evolution. Thus, I will begin with an

overview of the predictor influences, followed by a discussion of the theories of values

evolution.

Influences on Values Formation and Evolution


In most international management textbooks one can find a description of influences on

individual-level values formation/evolution similar to the one depicted in Figure 1(A), which I

describe as the Traditional Perspective. These are comprised of four categories of macro-level

influences: socio-cultural, economic, political and technological. Socio-cultural influences

include those related to the culture and history of the society in which an individual spent his/her

formative years. Economic influences encompass the economic system, the economic well-being

(e.g., gross national income per capita) and the economic growth of a society. Political influences

encompass the political system, the legal system and the integrity (e.g., corruption level) of a

society. Technological influences include the level of technological sophistication and the rate of

technological change in a society. It has long been noted in the literature that all of these

influences affect individual-level values. Nonetheless, the debate continues regarding which of

these is the driving force that most profoundly shapes individual-level values.

———————————————

Insert Figure 1 about here

———————————————

The individual-level values research stream, which I have pursued cross-culturally with my

colleagues for the past two decades, indicates that these macro-level influences may be logically

clustered utilizing a time-orientation. That is, we can group them based on how long it takes a

particular type of influence to have an impact on individual-level values. Further, the time that it

takes for an influence to have an impact on individual-level values appears to be directly related

to the time that it takes for the influence itself to change. When we talk of socio-cultural

influences (societal values), we tend to measure the time period for change in terms of

generations and centuries. Conversely, when we talk of economic influence and political

influence, the timeframe of change can be years or decades, especially in emerging and


transitioning economies. Technological change can occur even more rapidly. These last three

influences—economic, political and technological—share a common time horizon that is

considerable shorter than the time horizon for socio-cultural change. Additionally, all three of

these influences are closely related to business activity in a society, whereas the socio-cultural

influences are more closely related to a society’s core social values. In support of this

conclusion, an assessment of hard-data predictor variables for the economic, political and

technological influences shows them to be relatively to highly correlated. Thus, we have

clustered these three influences, as shown in Figure 1(B), under the heading of the Business

Ideology influences. Our research has also shown that the socio-cultural and business ideology

influences may be in conflict with one another, and that the potential for this conflict is

especially likely in emerging and transitioning economies (Ralston, Pounder, Lo, Wong, Egri &

Stauffer, 2006).

Theories of Values Evolution

Convergence. One of the original theories of values formation, convergence, argues that

technological influence is the catalyst that motivates individuals to develop a values system that

is consistent with the technology of their society, regardless of the socio-cultural influences.

Convergence advocates subscribe to the view that a given technology will shape both

educational demands and business structures such that they will generate values that are

“common” to the given technology. This theory states that as societies industrialize, they will

adopt the technologies of the existing industrialized societies, and in turn they will adopt their

values (Webber, 1969). Given the time period of the development of the convergence concept,

this perspective also implies a convergence to Western capitalism.


Divergence. The second of the original theories of values formation, divergence takes the

opposite view as that proposed by convergence. Its advocates argue that socio-cultural influence

is the driving force that will cause individuals from a society to retain the specific values system

of the societal culture through time, regardless of other possible influences, such as

technological, economic and political change (Webber, 1969).

Crossvergence. The most recently developed theory, crossvergence advocates that the

combination of socio-cultural influences and business ideology influences is the driving force

that precipitates the development of new and unique values systems among individuals in a

society due to the dynamic interaction of these influences (Ralston, Gustafson, Cheung &

Terpstra, 1993). The crossvergence perspective has evolved over the past 15 years, as I shall

explain in more detail in subsequent discussion.

REFLECTIONS ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE CROSSVERGENCE PERSPECTIVE

Before discussing the six studies that shaped my thinking regarding values formation and

evolution, generally, and crossvergence, specifically, I will describe the motivation underlying

the development of each study. As such, in my discussion, I will focus on what we were trying to

accomplish in these studies, rather than on the details of them, which are documented in print.

In the first study, the 1993 Journal of International Business Studies article, we defined

the crossvergence concept (Ralston et al., 1993). In this study, we sought to empirically test an

observed situation that did not appear to be explained by existing theory. In the second study,

published in 1996 in JIBS, we investigated the impact that outside (primarily Western) societies

have had on the various regions of China to assess whether the more open regions had a more

crossvergent perspective than the more closed regions (Ralston, Yu, Wang, Terpstra & He,

1996). The third, fourth, and fifth studies more rigorously define the crossvergence process by


investigating the three primary aspects of the business ideology influences, as previously

described and as also discussed in our 2006 Management and Organization Review article

(Ralston et al., 2006). It should be noted that these three studies were exploratory in nature. We

did not use hard data, macro-level predictor variables. Instead, at that stage of development, we

based our arguments on logic, underlying assumptions, and/or historical facts to identify the

situational differences (e.g., capitalist vs. socialist), because, at that point, we were trying to

determine whether these variables appeared to be relevant. More recently, we have moved to

using hard-data predictor variables in our research projects.

Specifically, in Study 3, we investigated the impact of economic systems and societal culture

(Ralston et al., 1997); in Study 4, the political situation and societal culture (Ralston et al., 1999);

and, in Study 5, technology and generation (Egri & Ralston, 2004). Study 6, which replicated the

1993 JIBS study twelve years later, was designed to longitudinally investigate the values

evolution phenomenon (Ralston et al., 2006). This study, in particular, has produced what I

consider to be truly interesting and eye-opening results.

Study 1 — China, Hong Kong and U.S. (JIBS, 1993)

In this study of China, Hong Kong and the U.S., the crossvergence concept was first

introduced, with Hong Kong as the focal point. Hong Kong was the focus because of its

combined Chinese socio-cultural influence and Western business ideology influence due to

British rule and commerce with the West1. In Table 1, I present data that summarize the findings

of this study to demonstrate that on four of the eight values dimensions, crossvergence is the

favored explanation for the Hong Kong outcome, with two of the four Eastern-developed


measures and two of the four Western-developed measures supporting crossvergence as the best

explanation of values evolution.

———————————————

Insert Table 1 about here

———————————————

However, the motivation for this paper is an important back story as it not only inspired this

particular piece of work, but also my future research stream as well. I was born and raised in the

U.S. In 1989, I took a visiting faculty position in Hong Kong, and it did not take me long to

realize that Hong Kong was not the U.S. During my stay, I had opportunities to visit Mainland

China, and, in my opinion, neither was Hong Kong the same as Mainland China of the late

1980s. When I thought of Hong Kong in terms of the convergence and divergence theories,

neither of these theories seemed to provide a reasonable explanation of what I perceived I was

observing in this society. I saw Hong Kong as possessing some of the attitudes and behaviors of

a Western, Anglo, capitalistic society that I knew reasonably well. But I also observed, what

appeared to me, as a Westerner, to be other attitudes and behaviors that were much more related

to what I had observed in China. My observations presented an empirical question that could be

tested, which is what we did, and which is what resulted in the crossvergence perspective being

developed as an alternative to the existing convergence and divergence theories.

Study 2 — Six Regions of China (JIM, 1996)

In this follow-up to the 1993 study, we sought to determine whether crossvergence, as we

had defined it, would apply at the regional level. We chose to study the six regions of China

because it was an intriguing situation, as the people of these regions had been fairly segregated

from one another. They also had experienced different levels of contact/influence from outside

China, particularly from the West. Our hypothesis was that the crossvergence effect would be


more pronounced in regions where people engaged in more interaction with the outside world.

We postulated that the more cosmopolitan Chinese would more intensely embrace the

individualistic values associated with Western capitalistic countries than would their parochial

counterparts. Table 2 shows that individuals in cosmopolitan regions scored highest on the

individualism dimensions, whereas individuals in the most parochial regions scored the lowest.

With the support found for crossvergence in these two studies, we continued our research to

better understand the underlying causes of the crossvergence effect.

———————————————


———————————————

Study 3 — China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. (JIBS, 1997)

With this study, we began the process of more rigorously defining the crossvergence concept.

Although studies 1 and 2 indicated that crossvergence was a relevant theory for explaining

values evolution using different instrument measures, the findings were limited in that both

studies were centered upon Chinese societies. In this study, we expanded the breadth of our

international coverage to include four countries: China, Japan, Russia, and the U.S. These

countries were strategically selected to fill the cells of a two-by-two matrix of socio-cultural and

economic ideology influences, as depicted in Figure 2. We used the Schwartz Values Survey,

with a similar focus on the individualism—collectivism construct as we used in Study 2.

Included with our assessment of the overall individualism—collectivism continuum, were

assessments of the openness-to-change—conservation continuum and the self-enhancement—

self-transcendence continuum. These may be viewed as the two component continua of the

overall individualism—collectivism construct.


We found crossvergence support for overall individualism—collectivism continuum and for

openness-to-change—conservation continuum. The self-enhancement—self-transcendence

continuum showed a divergence finding, with the Western cultures, Russia and the U.S., scoring

higher. Additionally, we found that the overall individualism—collectivism continuum indicated

that the socio-cultural influence was the dominant one, but that for the openness-to-change—

conservation continuum, the contribution of both the socio-cultural and the economic ideology

influences while important, were not significantly different. Thus, the findings from this study,

as reported in Table 3, strongly reinforce the broader-based validity of crossvergence as a theory

of values evolution.

———————————————————

Insert Table 3 and Figure 2 about here

———————————————————

More importantly, this study provided empirical support for the theoretical assertion made by

Harry Triandis that individualism and collectivism should be separate dimensions (Triandis,

1995). As shown in Table 3, for the overall individualism—collectivism continuum, Russia

scored higher than Japan, which supports the culture-dominant hypothesis of this study.

Nonetheless, when we decomposed the individualism—collectivism continuum into a low to

high individualism continuum and a low to high collectivism continuum, we found that there was

no significant difference between these two countries on the individualism continuum, but that

there was a significance difference on the collectivism continuum, with Japan scoring higher

than Russia. Thus, reporting that culture was dominant for the individualism—collectivism

continuum, while not wrong, missed the nuance of what was really causing the effect, which in

this instance was the level of collectivism. Our subsequent studies that have focused on Vietnam

(Ralston et al., 1999a), China (Ralston et al., 1999b), Cuba (Ralston, 2007), and the Middle East


(Riddle, Ralston, Melahi, Butt & Dalig, 2007), also found that, while individualism and

collectivism are to some degree correlated, the results for these dimensions are sufficiently

different to clearly warrant considering them to be separate dimensions. Combining

individualism and collectivism into a single dimension results in a loss of the unique contribution

that each of these dimensions provides. Further, our multi-country work, currently in progress,

continues to support the separate two-dimension perspective.

Study 4 — Two Regions of Vietnam (JIBS, 1999a)

Continuing with the investigation of the potential impact of macro, non-culture influences,

we designed a study examining the content of political differences within a single society,

Vietnam. While this study included data on China and the U.S., as well as the two regions of

Vietnam, I will focus this discussion on the findings for the North and South regions of Vietnam.

Vietnam’s political development over the past several decades has been fascinating. Initially, the

French presence dominated the country. This was followed by the American presence in the

South, until the withdrawal in 1975, which concluded the American-Vietnam war. The

reunification of Vietnam in 1975 resulted in the people and businesses of the northern and

southern regions being treated substantially differently. To the winner goes the spoils, and for the

allegiance to the winning side of the war, the businesses in the North were rewarded with,

relatively-speaking, more freedom and flexibility. Conversely, those in the South were subjected

to a harsh re-education program, close scrutiny and little latitude in behavior.

This history inspired us to ask the question: Was the period of the American presence or the

subsequent period of reunification more influential? Many of the participants in our study

experienced the formative years of their youth during the war period. Thus, it is reasonable to

postulate that the American presence in the South had some impact. However, our subjects also


experienced the more recent political experience of reunification, and this experience differed

substantially depending on whether they were from the South (more harsh treatment) or the

North (more favorable treatment). The findings, as reported in Table 4, illustrate that of the three

individualism-based dimensions, for overall individualism and self-enhancement, the northern

Vietnamese scored higher than their southern counterparts. This suggests that the more recent,

short-term reunification influence (more harsh treatment) had the more significant impact, which

also implies that political influence should be thought of as a recent, short-time-period effect.

Additionally, no differences were identified for the three collectivism-focused dimensions,

reinforcing the existence of separate individualism and collectivism dimensions.

———————————————


———————————————

The findings of this study show that, in traditionally collectivistic societies, collectivistic

values did not change in the short-term, but that the individualistic ones did. Moreover, we have

found similar trends in current research endeavors, including studies of Cuba (Ralston, 2007) and

the Middle East (Riddle et al., 2007). From these findings, one might postulate that the business

ideology influences have more impact on individualistic values, while the socio-cultural

influences have more impact on collectivistic values. Logic would seem to support this

postulation. Business ideology influences are the ones that more directly affect business issues

and are the one that can change more rapidly. Conversely, socio-cultural influences are the ones

that are more fundamental to the society’s core and are the ones than evolve much more slowly.

Therefore, as developing (emerging and transitioning) societies experience economic, political

and technological change in their shift to a more capitalistic business orientation, it seems

reasonable to expect that the business-related values would change more quickly than the core


social values. Since capitalism is related to individualistic values, a change toward individualism

would also seem to be expected. Likewise, as the literature has shown, most developing

economies tend to have a collectivistic orientation. Therefore, it additionally would be logical to

expect that these collectivistic core values would be slower to change. The result is that

developing societies, as they transition to become capitalistic economies, will develop forms of

capitalism that are unique to their societies based on the crossvergence of the specific business

ideology and socio-cultural influences in each society. Obviously, this postulation, if correct,

would have important implications for understanding work behaviors in many developing

societies.

Study 5 — Chinese and American Generations (Organization Science, 2004)

In this study of Chinese and American generations, we explore the possibility that

technology, specifically the internet, might play a role in shaping the country differences, with

the current Chinese and American generations being more similar than their older counterparts.

Our findings provided only minimal support for this deduction. In retrospect, we probably did

not have a young enough group, especially in China, to thoroughly test for the internet

(technology) effect. Thus, this may be an opportunity for a future study. Nonetheless, the

findings are interesting and I chose to briefly discuss a segment of them because to this point my

discussion has focused solely on the importance of macro-level predictors—socio-cultural

influences and business ideology influences—on individual-level values. In this study, as shown

in Table 5, we found that a micro-level predictor, generation cohort (age), is also important for

understanding the values evolution process. Table 5, presents data selected from the study to

exemplify this point. It shows that for openness-to-change, conservation and self-enhancement—

three of the four Schwartz Values Survey dimensions—significant effects were found between


the younger and older generations, but not between these two diverse countries. These findings

are also consistent with a previous JIBS study of ours, in which we looked only at Chinese

generations (Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra & Yu, 1999). A point that I will comment on

further when looking at future research directions, is that these studies, when taken in concert

with one another, provide evidence of the importance of using multi-level (e.g., macro and

micro) predictors of values formation/evolution. The emergence of hierarchical linear modeling

methodologies, has made this approach more feasible in recent years.

———————————————


———————————————

Study 6 — A Longitudinal Assessment of China Hong Kong and the U.S. (MOR, 2006)

The final study brings us full-circle to Study 1. Study 6 is a longitudinal assessment of values

evolution that included the data from the 1993 JIBS article (Study 1) as time period 1 data for

this 2006 Management and Organization Review study. The time period 1 data were collected in

1989. We replicated that data collection twelve years later in 2001. Data from this study, which

are presented in Table 6, show that the crossvergence explanation of values evolution was

supported longitudinally for five of the eight dimensions.

———————————————


———————————————

However, the findings of this study that were truly eye-opening for me are illustrated in

Figure 3. In this figure, I have plotted the trend lines for two of the study dimensions, locus of

control and Confucian dynamism. Looking at locus of control first, we see that the U.S. has

remained stable over this twelve-year period. China has also remained reasonably stable, but

Hong Kong’s locus of control score has increased substantially, which means developing a more


external orientation. Had we done a study of only China and the U.S., our conclusion would have

been divergence. Had we done a study of only China and Hong Kong, our conclusion would

have been convergence. And, had we done a study of only Hong Kong and the U.S., where the

findings show the managerial values of these two societies becoming significantly more different

over time even though their business people cooperatively worked together, our conclusion

would have been that to the best of our knowledge there is no cross-cultural theory of values

evolution that explains this deviating trend.

With regard to the Confucian dynamism trend lines, we see somewhat similar directions for

these trends as those for locus of control, with one important exception. The China and Hong

Kong trend lines intersect, and by the end of this twelve-year period appear to be heading in

opposite directions. Collecting a third time period of data would be necessary to confirm this

apparent trend. However, the fact remains that the findings for the Hong Kong – U.S.

relationship (locus of control) and the Hong Kong – China relationship (Confucian work

dynamism) are real, and these relationships are not addressed by theory that currently exists in

the cross-cultural literature!

———————————————


———————————————

In summary, we have found empirical support for the crossvergence perspective across

diverse societies, using different measurement instruments, and employing both cross-sectional

and longitudinal designs. Further, our current research with large multi-country samples

continues to find crossvergence to be the favored explanation for values evolution, as has the

recent research of others (Andrews & Chompusri, 2005; Kelley, MacNab & Worthley, 2006).

Thus, crossvergence provides a more encompassing and finely grained theory that is more


reflective of the empirical evidence. The cumulative findings not only provide substantial

support for crossvergence theory, but also provide direction for future refinement of the theory.

PROJECTIONS ON DIRECTIONS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL VALUES RESEARCH

This previous work raises exciting possibilities for the future of cross-cultural values

research. In this section, I first focus my comments on how we might refine and redefine

crossvergence theory, based on the knowledge gained from past research. Second, I will

comment on research design issues and topics that I believe are important to consider, if we are

to enhance the quality of cross-cultural research in general.

Refining the Definition of Crossvergence

My colleagues and I had originally proposed crossvergence theory as an alternative or

additional way to discuss values formation and evolution. However, a question that can now be

raised is: What implications do the empirical findings from 15 years of research present for the

conceptualization of crossvergence theory, as well as for those of convergence and divergence

theories? These findings seem to call into question the functionality of the classical definitions of

convergence and divergence, which appear to address a very small portion of the empirically

determined reality. Moreover, it appears that crossvergence is a theory that encompasses both the

classic convergence and divergence concepts. As shown in Figure 4, crossvergence might be

viewed as a typology consisting of three categories of relationships, where each category consists

of a set of similar—but not identical—relationships. These three categories can be described as:

conforming-crossvergence, static-crossvergence and deviating-crossvergence. Perhaps most in

need of definitional discussion is the longitudinally deviating-crossvergence values phenomenon,

because of the dearth of previous consideration. Specifically, what causes values differences

between societies (cultural distance – Shenkar, 2001), to increase over time?


———————————————


———————————————

Implications of the deviating-crossvergence findings. First, we should note that

longitudinal deviating values are not consistent with the classical definition of divergence. The

divergence perspective argues that socio-cultural influences, rather than the business ideology

influences, would constitute the driving force in the creation of a values system. Divergence,

furthermore, is a cultural stasis in which a society maintains its societal values system over an

extended period of the time—at least a generation. Thus, the implication is that any cross-

cultural distance or differences that are found between societies in a longitudinal comparison

would be maintained over time. The socio-culturally driven divergence definition also implies

that change would not occur due to business ideology influences. However, when values

between societies become more different over time—especially over a relatively short time-

period, such as our twelve-year study (Ralston et al., 2006)—it is clear that a change in business

ideology must have occurred. Therefore, at least in part, business ideology influences would be

the cause of the individual-level values change. Consequently, this is not a situation that can be

defined as divergence.

Equally clearly, this deviation-of-values phenomenon cannot be described as convergence.

Convergence advocates that there are business ideology influences, primarily technology,

causing values change, yet the observed direction of the change across societies—away from one

another—is exactly opposite to the prediction of convergence. This also indicates that

convergence (i.e., values becoming the same) and divergence (i.e., values remaining consistently


different) are not the polar points on the values continuum, as we initially proposed (Ralston et

al., 1993).

Likewise, our original definition of crossvergence did not address longitudinally deviating

values (Ralston et al., 1993). However, the crossvergence definition is sufficiently robust to

accommodate such a phenomenon in that it provides for the synergistic interaction of business

ideology and socio-cultural influences to “form a unique values system” (Ralston et al. 1997, p.

138). Based on the insights gleaned from our research, particularly from our longitudinal

investigation (Ralston et al., 2006), I believe that the definition of crossvergence can encompass

the tri-faceted typology identified in Figure 4, which I will now discuss in more detail.

Descriptions and definitions of the three categories of crossvergence. First, conforming-

crossvergence, is the situation where individual-level values differences across groups (e.g.,

societies, regions, generations) would decrease over time. Conforming-crossvergence is

illustrated by the Hong Kong-China findings for locus of control in Figure 3. The classical

definition of convergence would be a specific case of the conforming-crossvergence group, as

illustrated in Figure 4-A.

Next, static-crossvergence exists when the situation where values across groups may change

over time, but where the values difference relationship between groups remains unchanged.

Static-crossvergence is illustrated by the China-U.S. findings for locus of control in Figure 3.

The classical definition of divergence would be a specific case of the static-crossvergence group,

as illustrated in Figure 4-B. For classical divergence, neither the values nor the relationships

changes over time.

Finally, we can define deviating-crossvergence as the situation where values differences

across groups would increase over time. This implies that the individual-level values in one


group must change, but does not preclude the possibility that change in values may occur in both

groups being compared. Further, deviating-crossvergence consists of two sub-types, intersecting

and non-intersecting. These two, while having unique relationship patterns, ultimately result in

the same phenomenon, the values in the groups evolving to become less alike over time. The

non-intersecting form is perhaps the less complex of the two types. Over time, the values

differences across groups simply become greater. This type of relationship is exemplified in

Figure 3 by the Hong Kong-U.S. relationship for Confucian dynamism and is identified in Table

4-C. The intersecting type, as implied in the name, identifies an intersection or crossover-

relationship between groups. Over time, the group that was higher on a value becomes lower on

that value than the other group. Thus, with the intersecting type of deviating-crossvergence, there

is a temporal, short-term conforming effect that occurs during the process prior to the emergence

of the deviating effect. This type of relationship is exemplified, in Figure 3, by the Hong Kong-

China relationship for Confucian dynamism and is identified in Table 4-C.

A practical implication of this definitional refinement is that the questions for values

evolution become: What kind of crossvergence has occurred? And, how substantial a role do the

socio-cultural influences and the business ideology influences play in value formation and

evolution? Based on the findings of these studies, which show values being impacted by both

socio-cultural and business ideology influences, the likelihood of the occurrence of pure

classically defined convergence or divergence appears to be minimal in a longitudinal analysis.

Thus, as proposed, it may be more reasonable to think of these concepts as special cases of

conforming- and static-crossvergence, respectively; and to view conforming-, static- and

deviating-crossvergence as constructs that much more fully capture the range of possibilities of

values evolution across groups. Consequently, in multi-group comparisons (e.g., societies), these


categories may be used to describe the relationships found between two groups, and in turn, to

categorize the relationship similarities and differences found across all groups of a multi-group

analysis.

Where Do We Go from Here?

I would like to share with you some of my ideas concerning future research direction. These

ideas are based on the direction that our University Fellow International Research Consortium

(UFIRC) research group is presently taking (http://ufirc.ou.edu). My hope is that these ideas will

also encourage others to undertake more ground-breaking research that will assist us in better

understanding the aspects of behavior within and across societies.

Three concepts of importance—longitudinal, longitudinal, longitudinal. Borrowing the

well-known “location-location-location” idea from my real estate friends, I want to emphasize

the future of values research lies in longitudinal, longitudinal, longitudinal research. The

important differences that I have observed between our own cross-sectional studies and our

recent longitudinal study demonstrate that the longitudinal “video” provides a much more

complete picture than the cross-sectional “snap-shot” perspective. Having said this, I do not plan

to stop conducting cross-sectional studies, nor do I denigrate, in any manner, their importance. I

merely would like to re-emphasize, as others before me have, that there is a dearth of

longitudinal research in this area, and to note that our empirical investigations indicate that

longitudinally oriented studies truly assist in better understanding the rapidly evolving world in

which we live.

Integrating the “M & M & M” predictors. From the articles that I have discussed, as well

as those written by others, I believe that a case can be made for the importance of integrating

some combination of macro-, meso- and micro-level predictors in the same study. From our


current work in progress, in which we are using hard data predictors, I am thoroughly convinced

that this argument can be made. To be fair, I am hardly the first person to raise this point. I know

that we can go back at least to the mid-1970s when Negandhi (1975) admonished that the

literature was sorely missing studies that integrated the micro and macro levels of analysis. What

I might add is that, based on the recent work by our UFIRC group, we have identified a set of

macro-predictor variables that fit the three categories of business ideology influences: economic

(e.g., GNI per capita), political (e.g., polity) and technological (e.g., technology index). We have

found that these various business ideology predictors hold together as a group. That is, they are

correlated with one another, unfortunately sometimes to the point where they are too highly

correlated to use in the same study. However, this correlation does reinforce the validity of the

business ideology influence concept. For the socio-cultural influences, our research has shown

that the measures developed by Inglehart (1997) and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998)

are far superior to the much maligned Hofstede dimensions (see, McSweeney, 2002), which

nonetheless have continued to be used fairly extensively. At the meso-level, we have found the

organizational culture measure developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999) to be meaningful

(Ralston, Terpstra-Tong, Terpstra, Wang, & Egri, 2006), and it is proving to be cross-culturally

robust in our multi-country work in progress. At the micro-level, we have found the Schwartz

Value Survey dimensions constructed for the individual level (Schwartz, 1992) to be cross-

culturally meaningful and robust. As an aside, I cannot say the same for the more recently

developed societal-level Schwartz dimensions (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000), which we have found

to have internal consistency issues. In sum, I identify these measures simply as examples of

where our research group has found success, not to prescribe to others how they should design

their studies.


Assessing the socio-cultural and business ideology influences. Understanding the

predictors of individual-level values and behavior may be most relevant for those of us engaged

in the investigation of behavioral research. However, I think the relevance of this issue may also

transcend into other areas of international business research, especially for those researchers

considering a multi-level approach. Thus, in the context of these influence categories, I propose

three research questions, which I believe need more in depth consideration.

1. HOW does each type of influence, or sub-set influence, contribute to the values evolution

process? (degree)

2. WHEN does each type of influence, or sub-set influence, impact the values evolution

process? (timeframe)

3. WHY does each type of influence, or sub-set influence, play a role in the values evolution

process? (theory)

To this point, I believe that the cross-cultural research literature has been reasonably

thorough in answering the “what” question, regarding comparisons between societies on a

variety of dimensions. However, I think that we now need to be equally thorough in digging

beneath the surface to understand the how, when and why of the values evolution process.

Developing studies to focus on these questions should help us better understand why we are

finding what we have found. In this regard, coming back to my second point of integrating the 3-

M predictors, I believe that incorporating multi-level predictors in the same study will assist us in

this process. Concurrently, the use of longitudinally designed studies will provide us with a more

insightful interpretation of the phenomena that we have been observing over the past few

decades of values research.

As a final thought, while the cross-cultural study of work values and behavior has been

recognized as an important topic for the past several decades, it has never been more important


than it is today and will continue to be in the future. The number of developing countries,

consisting of those that are economically emerging and others that are political transforming, has

increased significantly over the past few decades, resulting in a dramatic acceleration in

globalization. Economically, the home-market saturation in developed countries has encouraged

many MNCs to become increasingly involved with these developing countries, as these MNCs

seek lower-cost production venues and new market opportunities. Somewhat ironically, the

MNCs have been both a catalyst for value evolution and those most affected by the nature and

degree of this values change.

In addition to this recent economic motivation for globalization and the associated need to

understand values evolution, political change has also contributed substantially to globalization

and values evolution. The number of previously isolated communist and former-communist

countries that are now transitioning to more democratic, as well as market-driven, economies has

added substantially to the list of developing countries. The growth in the number of developing

countries becomes exponentially more important when we consider the impact that several of

these countries (e.g., Brazil, China, India and Russia) have, and will continue to have, on the

global economy.

The good news for the cross-cultural researcher is that there truly are a multitude of relevant

research issues in need of investigation. Some of the issues that I see as being among the most

relevant ones include the following. The Middle East region and the Islamic world, which to date

have received very little attention in the International Management literature, are very important

to investigate and to understand better, given the growing economic and political importance of

this region and its religious ideologies. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economic

cluster and the CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) economic cluster provide other comparative


analyses of potential research interest, given the rapid expansion of these economies, their inter-

relatedness, and the growing importance of their contributions to the world economy. At the

regional sub-culture level, the countries of Brazil, Indonesia and Russia, as well as the former

Yugoslavia appear to be some of the sites that would be interesting to consider, given the

geographic and/or ethnic diversity within these societies.

Further, at the within-society level, a much more thorough exploration of demographic—

particularly, age and gender—differences is imperative, given that we have seen differences in

age and gender being found in both the single-country and cross-cultural literatures. The

locations for these types of exploration might be most interesting in the historically more

traditional cultures that are showing varying degrees of interest in transitioning (e.g., China,

Colombia, Hungary, and Saudi Arabia). These societies appear to have heightened age and

gender differences, which may be due to the interaction, sometimes conflict, of the socio-cultural

and business ideology influences. In these societies, it also appears that the older generations and

the female gender retain the traditional values of their society longer than do their counterparts.

The appearance of these relationships is, of course, subject to empirical scrutiny. Thus, within-

society(ies) gender-by-age cohort studies should be particularly interesting.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that these ideas are simply that—ideas. They are provided as

food-for-thought. They are not purported to be an all-inclusive list of important cross-cultural

research issues. Accordingly, I see a multitude of worthwhile and interesting, albeit challenging,

areas awaiting investigation by International Management researchers. Moreover, I am optimistic

that, collectively, we will tackle these challenges in order to explore the fascinating research

opportunities that await us using more sophisticated research designs and evaluation techniques.


Notes

1 The “influence-type” terminology that I am using to describe this study was developed many

years after the writing of this study.


References

Andrews, T. G. & Chompusri, N. 2005. Temporal dynamics of crossvergence:

Institutionalizing MNC integration strategies in post-crisis ASEAN. Asia Pacific

Journal of Management, 22, 2005, 5-22.

Cameron, K.S. & Quinn, R.E. 1999. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture-

Based on the Competing Values Framework. Addison Wesley Longman: Reading,

MA.

Egri, C.P. & Ralston, D.A. 2004. Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of

China and the U.S. Organization Science, 15, 210-220.

Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and

Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kelley, L., MacNab, B. & Worthley, R. 2006. Crossvergence and cultural tendencies: A

longitudinal test of the Hong Kong, Taiwan and United States banking sectors,

Journal of International Management, 12, 67-84.

McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their

consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1),

89-118.

Negandhi, A.R. 1975. Comparative management and organizational theory: A marriage

needed. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 334-344.

Ralston, D.A. (in press, 2007). Cuba: A comparison of work values on Castro’s island with

those in the U.S. Thunderbird International Business Review, 49(6).

Ralston, D.A., Egri, C.P., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R.H. & Yu. K.C. 1999b. Doing business in

the 21st century with the new generation of Chinese manager: A study of

generational shifts in work values in China. Journal of International Business

Studies, 30, 415-428.

Ralston, D.A., Gustafson, D.J., Cheung, F. & Terpstra, R.H. 1993. Differences in

Managerial values: A study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC managers. Journal of

International Business Studies, 24, 249-275.

Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.A., Terpstra, R.H., & Yu, K.C. 1997. The impact of national culture

and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States,

Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 177-208.

Ralston, D. A., Nguyen V.T. & Napier, N.K. 1999a. A comparative study of the work values

of North and South Vietnamese managers. Journal of International Business

Studies, 30, 655-672.


Ralston, D.A., Pounder, J., Lo, C.W.H., Wong, Y.Y., Egri, C.P. & Stauffer, J. 2006. Stability

and Change in Managerial Work Values: A longitudinal study of China, Hong

Kong and the U.S.A. Management and Organization Review, 2, 67-94.

Ralston, D.A., Terpstra-Tong, J., Terpstra, R.H., Wang, Xueli & Egri, C.P. 2006. Today’s

State-Owned Enterprises of China: Are They Dying Dinosaurs or Dynamic

Dynamos? Strategic Management Journal, 27, 825-843.

Ralston, D.A. Yu, K.C., Wang, X., Terpstra, R.H. & He, W. 1996. The cosmopolitan

Chinese manager: Findings of a study on managerial values across the six regions

of China. Journal of International Management, 2, 79-109.

Riddle, L., Ralston, D.A., Melahi, K., Butt, A.N. & Dalig, T. 2007. Middle East Managerial

Values: Evidence from Five Countries. Academy of Management Meeting,

Philadelphia, PA.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. 2000. National cultures: Implications for organizational

structure and behavior. In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.),

The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 417-436). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical

tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.

Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited; Towards a more rigorous conceptualization

and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business

Studies, 32, 519-535.

Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Westview: Boulder, CO.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding

diversity in global business (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Webber, R.H. (1969). Convergence or divergence. Columbia Journal of World Business,

4(3), 75-83.


Table 1

Results of the Eastern and Western Measures of Values a

—————————————————————————————————————

Group Hypothesis

Measures Relationships Supported

—————————————————————————————————————

Western-developed

Machiavellianism *** (Hong Kong & China) > U.S. Divergence

Locus Of Control *** China > Hong Kong > U.S. Crossvergence

Intolerance Of Ambiguity *** China > Hong Kong > U.S. Crossvergence

Dogmatism *** (Hong Kong & China) > U.S. Divergence

Eastern-developed

Confucian Work Dynamism * China > Hong Kong > U.S. Crossvergence {Long-Term Orientation}

Human-Heartedness *** U.S. > Hong Kong > China Crossvergence {Masculinity - Femininity}

Integration*** (U.S. & Hong Kong) > China Convergence {Power Distance}

Moral Discipline N/S

Hong Kong, U.S., China {Undeterminable} {Individualism - Collectivism}

* p < .05; *** p < .001.

a Ralston, D.A., Gustafson, D.J., Cheung, F. & Terpstra, R.H. 1993. Differences in managerial values: A study of

U.S., Hong Kong and PRC managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 249-275.


Table 2

Results for the Six Regions of China Comparisons b

________________________________________________________________________________

Dimension Region Groupings

________________________________________________________________________________

Individualism — Collectivism

Overall * Group 1 > Group 2 > Group 3

Openness-to-Change — Conservation * Group 1 > Group 2 > Group 3

Self-Enhancement — Self-Transcendence * (Group 1 & Group 2) > Group 3

Confucianism N/S

________________________________________________________________________________

where, Group 1 = Guangzhou and Shanghai

Group 2 = Beijing and Dalian

Group 3 = Chengdu and Lanzhou

* p < .05.

b Ralston, D.A. Yu, K.C., Wang, X., Terpstra, R.H. & He, W. 1996. The cosmopolitan Chinese manager:

Findings of a study on managerial values across the six regions of China. Journal of International Management,

2, 79-109.


Table 3

Results of the Values of the Schwartz Values Survey c

______________________________________________________________________________

Group Hypothesis

Continua Countries Relationships Supported

______________________________________________________________________________

Individualism - U.S.

Collectivism*** Russia US > Russia > Japan > China Crossvergence

Japan (Culture Dominant)

China

Openness-to-Change - U.S.

Conservation*** Russia US > (Russia & Japan) > China Crossvergence

Japan (Neither Dominant)

China

Self-Enhancement - U.S.

Self-Transcendence*** Russia (US & Russia) > (Japan & China) Divergence

Japan

China

______________________________________________________________________________

*** p < .001.

c Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.A., Terpstra, R.H., & Yu, K.C. 1997. The impact of national culture and economic

ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of



Table 4

A Comparison of North and South Vietnamese d

Dimensions Group Relationships

—————

INDIVIDUALISM

Overall*** North Vietnam > South Vietnam

Openness-

to-Change North Vietnam ~ South Vietnam

Self-Enhancement*** North Vietnam > South Vietnam

COLLECTIVISM

Overall North Vietnam ~ South Vietnam

Conservation North Vietnam ~ South Vietnam

Self-Transcendence North Vietnam ~ South Vietnam

*** p < .001.

North Vietnam — Hanoi

South Vietnam — Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon)

d Ralston, D. A., Nguyen V.T. & Napier, N.K. 1999. A comparative study of the work values of North and South

Vietnamese managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 655-672.


Table 5

A Comparison of Chinese and American Younger and Older Generations

on Schwartz Values Survey Dimensions e

Dimensions

Chinese and American Generations Comparisons

Openness-to-Change

(Social Reform, Gen X) > (Republican, Silent Gen.)

YOUNGER > OLDER

Conservation

(Republican, Silent Gen.) > (Social Reform, Gen X)

OLDER > YOUNGER

Self-Enhancement

[Gen X > Social Reform] > (Republican, Silent Gen.)

YOUNGER > OLDER

Self-Transcendence

(Republican, Silent Gen., Gen X) > Social Reform

CHINESE AMERICAN

Social Reform 1971-75 Generation X 1960-75

Republican Era 1930-50 Silent Generation 1925-45

e Egri, C.P. & Ralston, D.A. 2004. Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the U.S.

Organization Science, 15, 210-220.


Table 6

The Findings on Longitudinal Change for China, Hong Kong and the U.S. f

Values Dimensions 1989 2001 Hypothesis Supported

Integration

{Power Distance}

(US, HK) > China

(Convergence)

US = HK = China (n.s.)

Convergence

Human-heartedness

{Masc - Fem}

US > HK > China

(Crossvergence)

(US, HK) > China

Crossvergence

Machiavellianism

(HK, China) > U.S.

(Divergence)

(HK, China) > US

Divergence

Locus of control

China > HK > US

(Crossvergence)

(China, HK) > US

Crossvergence

Confucian work

dynamism

China > HK > US

(Crossvergence)

(HK, Ch) > US

Crossvergence

Moral discipline

{Indiv - Collect}

HK = US = China (N/S.)

(HK, China) > US

Crossvergence

Intolerance of ambiguity

China > HK > US

(Crossvergence)

(HK, China) > US

Crossvergence

Dogmatism

(HK, China) > U.S. (Divergence)

(China, HK) > US

Divergence

f Ralston, D.A., Pounder, J., Lo, C.W.H., Wong, Y.Y., Egri, C.P. & Stauffer, J. 2006. Stability and Change in

Managerial Work Values: A longitudinal study of China, Hong Kong and the U.S.A. Management and

Organization Review, 2, 67-94.


Figure 1

A Description of the Factors that Influence Values

A. TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Socio-Cultural Influences | | | | | | �

Technological � VALUES Economic Influences � Influences | | | | | | Political Influences

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B. TIME-CHANGE CLUSTERS PERSPECTIVE

Socio-Cultural Influences | | | | | | � VALUES � | | | | | | Business Ideology Influences

• Economic

• Political

• Technological


Figure 2

A Two-by-Two Matrix of Socio-Cultural and Economic Ideology Influences c

S O C I O - C U L T U R A L

Western Eastern

┌───────────────────────── ┬───────────────────────── ┐ Capitalism │ │ │ │ ① United States │ ② Japan │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Individual-oriented Culture │ Group-oriented Culture │ │ │ │ E I │ │ │ │ │ │ C D │ Individual-oriented Ideology │ Individual-oriented Ideology │ │ │ │ O E │ │ │ │ │ │ N O │ │ │ ├───────────────────────── ┼───────────────────────── ┤ O L │ │ │ ③ Russia │ ④ China │ M O │ │ │ │ │ │ I G │ Individual-oriented Culture │ Group-oriented Culture │ │ │ │ C Y │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Group-oriented Ideology │ Group-oriented Ideology │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Socialism └───────────────────────── ┴───────────────────────── ┘

c Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.A., Terpstra, R.H., & Yu, K.C. 1997. The impact of national culture and economic

ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of



Figure 3

Examples of Longitudinal Trends in Values Evolution f

Key: U.S.

Hong Kong

China

f Ralston, D.A., Pounder, J., Lo, C.W.H., Wong, Y.Y., Egri, C.P. & Stauffer, J. 2006. Stability and Change in

Managerial Work Values: A longitudinal study of China, Hong Kong and the U.S.A. Management and

Organization Review, 2, 67-94.

Locus of Control

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

11.5

12.5

13.5

1989 2001

Confucian Work Dynamism

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

1989 2001


Figure 4

A Typology of Crossvergence Using a Longitudinal Perspective

A. Conforming – Crossvergence

B. Static – Crossvergence

C. Deviating – Crossvergence

Classic

Convergence

Time 1 Time 2

Classic

Divergence

Time 1 Time 2

Non-intersecting

Intersecting

Time 1 Time 2

the crossvergence perspective: reflections and projections · the crossvergence perspective 2 the...

Documents